Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday June 16, 2011 @04:12PM
from the hey-free-trip dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A 23-year-old British computer student faces possible extradition to the U.S. for linking to copyrighted content on his website. The student, Richard O'Dwyer, was accused of copyright infringement after setting up the website TV Shack, which had links to thousands of films and tv shows, but did not directly host them."

Soviet prisoner #1: So how long is your sentence?Soviet prisoner #2: 10 years.Soviet prisoner #1: What did you do?Soviet prisoner #2: Nothing.Soviet prisoner #1: You liar! "Nothing" gets you 20 years under the PATRIOT ACT.

It was due to Tony Blair's belief that the special transatlantic friendship required the UK to act like a girl who drops anything and comes running when her boyfriend wants a fuck, in the belief that being completely servile to a disinterested bully will one-day lead to a marriage proposal. Same pattern of thought during the second gulf war. Give America what it wants in the hope of maintaining this special relationship and giving the UK influence over America's actions. Blair would have skull fucked a pupp

This one sounds like the US has no real interest at all in the case, they are just trying to lower the bar for extradition cases, with the aim of targeting other people.
This guy is just seems to be a victim of a political game, with the intention of making it easier to extradite other people currently in the UK for the crime of handling intellectual property that the US does not want them to.

So will the British government and the British people just role over and become another third world country when it comes to providing the citizens justice against politically motivated chargers by the US government.

Won't know until the case has been tried. Nice jumping to conclusions.

Extradition in civilized countries is for already known criminals... and it means loss of freedom, so fuck the innocent until proven guilty principle. I hope people with a limited grasp of basic human rights like you get extradited to China or Iran. Those are the places that generally apply as much human rights to their people as the USA reserve for those infringing copyrights. Fortunately there you won't even have to pay a arm and leg for the lawyers!

You're bang on the money, and this is what the industry doesn't get. As a different example, I've spent more money on Steam in the past year, than I had on boxed games in the ten years prior. Why ? Because they give me what I want, how I want it, where I want it.

I can count on one hand the number of hours I spend watching TV shows every week, the wife maybe twice as many. Our cable TV bill was close to $300 a month. So, 5 bucks an hour for TV shows seems a bit much, but this is how the cableco designed

But the UK should. Is this even a criminal case in the UK? I doubt they can extradite him for a civil matter. And if it is a crime in the UK, and he committed the act in the UK, he should be tried there. The only reason for extradition is if the crime was committed in another country.

With this kind of nonsense abuse going on, the rest of the world is saying "America! FUCK YOU!" How fun it is for me to reap the contempt sown by an out of control US agency front for out of control US corporations.

Do they have any jurisdiction over this? It wasn't even hosted in the US.

Well, since both countries are signatories to the Berne Convention [wikipedia.org]... technically, by treaty the US is legally entitled to ask for the extradition.

Of course, if you were living in a country which said that linking didn't actually constitute copyright infringement, then the response would be "go away". If your country rules that linking is the same as infringement... well, then you get extradited. So, depending on precedent in the UK, that's what will likely happen.

I think this pretty much demonstrates how copyright has become the big bogeyman that circumvents any sanity in law any more. It's become somewhat out of control, and something people are treating as the most important thing going.

Getting authorities to act sanely entails that they understand a *tiny* bit about how these systems work. They don't. By the admission of many legislators they are getting all their information from lobbyists... which means almost all their information has bias problems.

We've come a long way from the "creme rising to the top" and such in government. It's purely face-men listening totally to corporate interests. And anyone with true unbiased knowledge are simply "the other" now and their input is completely thrown away.

He could get a judge that isn't on the take and actually cares about the facts and the best outcome is that it becomes a VERY EXPENSIVE fiasco... what is one more very expensive fiasco, eh?

I think they understand how these systems work just fine. The problem is that 'we, the people' like to think that the technical workings of things offers ways around the intent of laws in addition to getting around the letter of them.

e.g. if I get 1,000 individuals to upload 1,000 movies to 1,000 individual sites which don't have any particular public presence, then those 1,000 individuals are technically the ones breaking the laws.The people behind those 1,000 sites may also be breaking the law (depending on (nation) state and internationally applicable conventions, they may be in direct violation of a copyright law or at least in violation of a copyright 'safe harbor' clause a la the DMCA).Any of the, say, 1,000,000 who directly download from those locations - by having received one or more of those locations - may also be breaking the law (depending on the (nation) state in question).

But finding those 1,000 individuals takes a lot of time, and costs a fair amount of money, and there's no guarantee that even one of them is found.Shutting down 1,000 sites takes a lot of time and costs a fair amount of money, and there's no guarantee that even one of them is actually shut down.Finding and suing the 1,000,000 downloaders takes even more time, costs even more money, and there's no guarantee that even one of them is actually found/sued.

Not to mention the great public backlash against actions taken against downloaders; not so much when it's against uploaders, oddly enough.

But now imagine that those 1,000,000 downloaders got those 1,000 addresses from 1 site. One single site. Now they've got an easy target. Now they've got the site that, while not responsible for the uploads, not hosting them, and not exactly putting a gun to people's head and saying THOU SHALT DOWNLOADETH, can certainly be successfully argued to be facilitating copyright infringement in a significant way.

The facilitating argument is usually what's used in these cases, at least around Europe. Not sure how that is in the U.S., but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the same were to apply there.

I used to live somewhere where there was a lot of drug dealing. So if I told you where that was do I get arrested for 'facilitating' the drug trade? What about if I put up a website with a list of areas known for dealing? Taking down a site like this does look like the simple solution, but at the end of the day it's all for show. Just like drugs if you bust the guys on the streets there are plenty more to take their place, the only solution to stopping it is to prevent the supply (or, for both sides of

I think this pretty much demonstrates how copyright has become the big bogeyman that circumvents any sanity in law any more. It's become somewhat out of control, and something people are treating as the most important thing going.

Of course, if you were living in a country which said that linking didn't actually constitute copyright infringement, then the response would be "go away". If your country rules that linking is the same as infringement... well, then you get extradited.

What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Linking is providing a pointer to some data. Are journalists going to be held to this standard as well, or is it only for things that happen to be on a computer system?

I think this pretty much demonstrates how copyright has become the big bogeyman that circumvents any sanity in law any more. It's become somewhat out of control, and something people are treating as the most important thing going.

Due to outsourcing of physical manufacturing, intellectual property is about all the USA has left to export. "Designed by Apple in California; made in China." So from an economic perspective, copyright is the most important thing going for the information-sellers of the world.

It's not a very good thing at all from the point of view of civil liberties, but liberty costs money and you are not the paying customer.

Well, since both countries are signatories to the Berne Convention [wikipedia.org]... technically, by treaty the US is legally entitled to ask for the extradition.

Could you point out to me where in the Berne Convention [wipo.int] extradition to the country of origin is mentioned as a remedy. In fact, it's quite clear in the opposite direction: violations are to be prosecuted in the territory where the infringement took place, in this case (if any infringement did take place) that is the UK.

Back when Tony Blair was in power he signed an extradition treaty with the US which means that if a DA files charges against someone, they can be extradited from the UK. Our Parliament ratified the treaty without inserting a reciprocal clause in the legislation making it dependant on your congress honouring the treaty.

Obviously your congress decided that having US citizens extradited just because a prosecutor in the UK fancied it them was mental, so they didn't ratify that clause. That leaves us with the current imbalance where your criminal justice system can essentially pull anyone out of the UK for any reason.

OK. That's actually pretty good news, but the treaty as negotiated is still imbalanced as I've commented above.

Still, I guess I learned that now our prosecutors can pull people out of your country too! Our news didn't report that, you guys seeing sense and honouring your negotiated obligations doesn't sell papers you see.

In any case, the treaty we have with the USA isn't the worst of our extradition arrangements. In the European Union we have these things called European Arrest Warrants which mean national

I'm an American and I find this situation as well as almost every governmental figure from the last 8 years pathetic. Even the ones that were mostly good, like my Senator Richard Lugar, have been shit since the Newt Gingrich congress when everything officially went apeshit with partisan hate (ending in the most unnecessary impeachment trial in history). But even worse than the politicians are the general public who keep electing these idiot facemen time after time. We're in major trouble, kids!

A lot of that would change if the states would change the districting and primary systems to be a bit more represenatative. Around here the party that holds a majority doesn't get to do the districting. Which means that boundaries over all tend to be relatively balanced. And since we have a top two primary with people being allowed to vote for whomever they wish in the primary regardless or party, we typically end up with districts where the election was effectively over after the primary, going on to the f

I'm happy with either "Subject" (I happen to like the Monarchy) or a "Citizen". But yes, this extradition crap does bug the hell out of me. It was all set up by our previous Labour Government who really didn't give a rat's ass about privacy, rights (unless they were politically gainful to Labour) or anything like that. I've seen the biggest "Big Brother" intrusions and breakdown of personal rights I've come across in 40 years during their time.I'm hoping that the new lot will have the balls to shut that

Right, but that doesn't redress the imbalance around the fact that the treaty allows for the USA to remove people from the UK for things actions that occur in the UK but are illegal under US law.

To highlight how crazy this is, there's a case of a somone involved in a bribery scandal being extradited even though the alleged crimes occurred entirely between the UK and Nigeria, just because he worked for a firm owned by Haliburton!

Of course it's right that such crimes should be investigated, but things like that are illegal in the UK too. If our criminal justice system doesn't see fit to prosecute, why pull them out to the USA to do it?

Having said that, our police and prosecutors are clearly and obviously corrupt at the highest levels (evidenced by the fact that our Tory government employed a former newspaper editor from News International who has been implicated in a phone hacking scandal, and his former boss even accidentally admitted to parliament that her paper regularly bribes police officers for information) so maybe you're doing us a favour. This is about the principal though!

ye I think the presumption should be that people are tried at home, because I don't really see how you can mount a great defence when you are a) away from your friends/family/normal support networks and b) tried in a country whose laws are all completely new to you. essentially non-essential extradition throws a fair trial to the wind.

The Uk doesn't extradite people if there is any danger of the death penalty being applied. Of course, that doesn't stop the Americans saying "hey yes, we promise to only do him for the 10 year crime" and then changing their minds when they have got their hands on him.

"Crimes" against a nation's people? For *linking* to copyrighted content!?

Since (according to the Berne convention) copyrights are automatic, that means pretty much every website on the Internet is copyrighted. Which means every hyperlink to a page that you don't own is potential copyright infringement. I think it would be safe to say that under this definition, almost every website on the planet is now guilty of a crime.

I called the Saudi Arabian crime stoppers and let them know that your mother, sisters, and daughters have all consistently failed to wear veils, or burqas. They also insist upon driving. I suspect they shall be extradited post haste.

Do you see why you fail yet? Because some of us have been trying to explain this to your stupid thick headed ass for quite a while now.

Do you know why it will never happen? Because Saudi Arabian laws don't apply here. Now lets follow that through logically... Do you think American laws apply elsewhere?

Oh BTW I'm an American, and veteran. My opinion? Julian Assuange should be freed, Bradley Manning should be freed, and the charges against this college kid should be dropped. The way my government is currently acting at times makes me physically sick.

Did you have the author's permission to do it? Say, by having paid him or his agent for that permission? No?

Whether you knew you did or didn't have the author's permission is a possible mitigation in court; maybe before then, if the cop or prosecutor believes you're an innocent dupe. Doesn't change the fact that you made one or more copies in order to read it. And if it was deliberate, it's agains

Given the peculiar characteristics of computer programs for circumventing encryption and other access control measures, the DMCA as applied to posting and linking here does not contravene the First Amendment.

I wonder why thoses company(CEO) are not in jail, if this "crime" can send you in jail for 5 years.

Because they follow the 'rules' which, presumably, this kid didn't do. Namely, if they get a takedown notice, they take it down. Those are the rules the interweb lawyers have agreed upon. I would bet my mouse this kid got some notices, ignored them and then the law descended.

Take down notices only apply to hosts. This man wasn't hosting anything, just providing links to files that other people were hosting. It's an incredibly stretch to suggest that he's done anything criminal. It's morally grey, but legally, I can't imagine how he's responsible as the materials are still going to be accessible whether or not he links to them. Plus, you can find them via Google, Bing and others anyways.

If you're going to be that literal, he had a website, it wasn't hosting any of those files. The DMCA takedown notices apply to services which are hosting files, not links. There were no files for him to take down.

And that's ignoring the fact that the DMCA doesn't apply outside the US, courts don't have legal jurisdiction over an alleged crime which happened over seas.

Well, youtube, Google and Facebook do not exist for the sole purpose of activities that infringe copyright. They also take measures to ensure that the infringing material is blocked or that the copyright holders are recompensed for it.

TV shack exists purely to allow people access to copyright information without the copyright holder's permission.

If this Slashdot article points to an Inquirer article that points to a website that points to videos, isn't Slashdot some fraction as guilty as the website owner? What is the decay rate for guiltiness-per-level-of-indirection?

I like using rlslog.net [rlslog.net] to conveniently find torrents. They host no copyrighted content whatsoever, only link to sites which link to torrents which in a sense link to a swarm of people who have parts of the file of interest.

I imagine that, just following random links on the internet from nearly any given site, I could eventually get to the site I mentioned above. How many links is enough degrees of separation? Surely if liability is introduced simply by linking to a website, you are liable for anything sites you link to also link to. I wonder how many government sites link to Google as their site search provider? Google can get you anywhere, so surely the government would in those cases be liable for linking to Google which links to torrent sites. And that's why this idea is completely absurd.

And how the hell is what this kid did worthy of extradition, or even a felony in the US? Our copyright policy is so ridiculous.

More specifically, Tommy Chong was jailed for selling bongs to Pennsylvania cops who repeatedly tried to purchase them even though Chong Glass refused each time because it is illegal in Pennsylvania. After placing a large order under a false name for pickup (where it was legal), the cops refused to pick up the material and had them ship it to get payment.

All of this circus was done for political reasons by Mary Beth Buchanan with a wink and a nod from John Ashcroft.

I think what these arguments are missing, which is what is often missing, is the area of intent. For example, Slashdot links to all sorts of "illegal" material -- but the site is a news site, not a site that is dedicated to indexing copyright infringed works.

What this guy could have done was make his site a discussion site with TV schedules etc. that just happened to also have an area showing examples of where this content was available online. If these links were not the primary goal of the site, but onl

Just saying if you Google "Watch movies free" and if returns the links for sites that allow you to stream movies for free, isn't this the SAME exact information being provided? If so Google could be prosecuted...however I doubt RIAA would like to go up against someone with a legal arm and financial backing.

Deal with your problems and stop trying to deal with other countries problems. You guys have poverty and unemployment rates through the roof, but you are wasting federal resources to try and get some young kid over there to prosecute him. Just an example, last night I was bored and found an Obama interview where he was asked about making Medical Marijuana a Federal Law so that the Feds can stop doing what they do. He said he supported it, but had much bigger issues to use federal resources on. Apparently one of those bigger issues is shipping kids here from the UK who pirate stuff. Seriously America, let us handle our own people breaking laws. We have it taken care of. You don't need to ship our boy over there to punish him when we can do that just fine.

This is a blaring indictment of how corporations run things. This copyright crap is just about corporate strings controlling our government. Where is the rage?

I can remember back in the day when the Internet first started how when it was first used for making money how angry the users were against it. It was suppose to be a landscape of pure thought, ideas to be shared for the edification of us all. Bzzzt. That didn't work out. Now its been raped by corporations, if some kid puts up a website that they think they can squeeze a dime out of they burn him. What is sickening is how our pathetic lapdog piece of shit politicians hand over the keys of power to them. We then have a massive industry of enforcement and punishment. We have so many fucking people in jail now its fucking insane.

Lets dissect all these fucking laws of ours that put people in jail to protect corporate interests. Next we need to consider that our retarded crooked cunt of a Supreme Court has decided in their fucked in the head reasoning that corporations are now "people" and have rights. Holy fucking shit people! How far does a cock have to jam up our asses before we realize how raped we are? How come they aren't paying taxes like a normal person then? Oh, that is right, they buy politicians to give us a tax code that stacks taller than a person.

The one big lesson that we have collectively forgotten like a bunch of retards is this: When it happens to the least of us, it happens to all of us. When we let these fuckers in charge get away with fucking ONE OF US, then ALL of our liberties are in jeopardy. If you don't consider ANY violation of ANYONE'S liberties a violation of your OWN liberty, then you just fuck off and let it happen. They come for you eventually too, and there is nobody left to stand and fight them with you. Besides you don't deserve anyone helping you because you were a cowardly cunt who let it happen to others.

I hope the British people fucking riot over this, but they will not. They are a bunch of lemming pussies too. Who am I to talk? We are proving to be the biggest bunch of retarded pussies in history. I shit you all not, if we don't get a grasp of our government and rip it away from corporations, we will be viewed by future historians as infinitely worse than the fucktards in the era of Germany that let the Nazis rise to power.

Why get so excited over some punk kid getting treated like a high crimes criminal? Sweet Jesus, people, this could be YOU. This could be ME! I don't have the means to fight this kind of shit? Do you? How far will they keep taking control over us? Oh fuck it, what can I expect of the Facebook generation? Stop the fucking planet, I want off.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's many decent countries that don't have extradition treaties with the USA. He could move to Zimbabwe, of course, but who the hell would want to live there? It'd be better to be in a crappy American prison than there.

There are countries, however, that are much stricter on who they'll extradite to the US, and for what crimes. Switzerland, I believe, is a good example of this. If they don't consider it a serious crime, they won't extradite. So they'll send you to America

New Zealand's law on extradition requires that the extradition offence also be a crime under NZ and be punishable by a maximum sentence of at least one year in jail.

Since our copyright law restricts criminal infringement [legislation.govt.nz] to "in the course of business" (ie: you're in the business of selling infringing copies), or "distribut[ing] otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the copyright owner", he'd be safe here.
The penalty qualifies, but the actions would not b

Ever read "1984"? Remember how the war department was the "Ministry of Peace", the propaganda department was the "Ministry of Truth", etc.? The USA's claim "land of the free" is the same. It's just propaganda, and it never was true. At least back in the old days, it was only the slaves and Indians who weren't free, but these days it's everyone who isn't super-rich and politically connected.

That's a terrible solution. I don't want a militarized border a few miles South of me. I'd rather we remove the economic incentive to smuggle drugs into the US by making them legal to produce and distribute here in a safe, affordable, and regulated manner. If they are going to be sold and used anyway (and they are, you can't stop it), it might as well be done safely and in the open where it can be monitored and regulated--and taxed appropriately.

What's more disturbing is how all these other countries willingly act as its lapdog and follow its orders. Maybe if the UK and other places would grow a spine, everyone else could just sit back and laugh when the USA does stupid and ridiculous stuff like this.

I bet China won't be honoring any extradition requests for "crimes" like this.

I bet China won't be honoring any extradition requests for "crimes" like this.

The implication here is you're better off in China? Think that one through carefully. Yes, this is a dipshit thing (at least on the face of it, perhaps he's using the website to coordinate a world wide viral pandemic... ) but China routinely shoots people that run afoul of the law, routinely and pervasively uses political oppression and nepotism, routinely and pervasively ignores the rule of law. Not sure you picked the right country to run to.

Britain has been pussy-whipped ever since Sterling stopped being the world's reserve currency (to be replaced by the US dollar) and their empire went south. They really have no choice but suck up to the guys in charge of the game at the moment. It's quite amazing that a country that once dominated the planet is now much worse off than a country that never really had an empire and has been destroyed several times (Germany).

The funny thing is that technology seems to speed things up - the US dollar is about